RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


What is the reason for the Brooks...(16 posts)

What is the reason for the Brooks...Lone Gunman
Aug 15, 2001 5:43 PM
Saddle resurgence? I see alot of mostly positive comments about the B-17, and now my curiosity is peaked. I have never ridden one before, a few years ago I was at the LBS and they had one there as I was shopping around for a new saddle. I had just heard about them again and read about a guy beating one with a ballpine (sp?) hammer to soften it up and I asked the shop owner about the Brooks. He sternly looked at me and said "forget it!!" For some reason I don't remember the reason he gave as why. My first sighting of a Brooks saddle was on a 1972 Schwinn Paramount, light lime green with toe clips, 10 speed, and fast. And the thing I remember most was the big copper rivets. I guess my question is how much DO they weigh as compared to a Terry Fly and is the program 6 months from Wall Bike and cost?
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...UncleMoe
Aug 15, 2001 6:32 PM
I am not sure of the resurgence. I just heard of them two weeks ago on this message board. Maybe the internet is making them popular or at least getting them a following again. I read they almost went out of business but were saved at the last minute by a bigger company.

I got mine and it is awesome. I can tell you that I have had a numb groin for years and have tried several saddles. I read about the Brooks and said to heck with it, I'm trying one. I had only seen one in pictures.

Hard as a rock. Put this conditioner called Proofide on it overnight and it softens the overall feel to it, so it is fir, yet comfy. The first two miles were a little odd, but after 20 miles it was great AND I WASN'T NUMB. Now there is a nice sweet spot on each side were the sit bones are.

It is not that heavy at all. People would lead you to believe it weighs 2 pounds. I think it is 600 grams. What is that? I guess if you race it means a lot. But if you ride for sport and excercise, nothing beats comfort for your groin and butt.

Wallbike.com makes it easy with a 6 month gaurantee. Return it for any reason for a full refund. Odd to buy something you've never seen, but I am very happy I did.

Oh, cost. The base B17 is $63. There is a more stylish model at $83 called the B17 Champion. Same leather and support frame, just larger more stylist copper rivets. The base model are just smaller rivets. I got the Champion model cause I figured I'd have it for quite a while.

www.brookssaddles.com, by it at wallbike.com.

GzyMnky - go ahead and flame me now.
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...Lone Gunman
Aug 15, 2001 6:45 PM
Well I guess I am thinking that there is no experience like the real thing and the 6 month deal sounds like the ticket. I will be getting into the century season here shortly plus the CNC ride. I think that the cut out seats are overrated, for me it depends upon the bibs I'm wearing that day, and I am expecting that for $100 on a saddle(the Fly) I should always be comfortable riding a century or whatever. I know i won't buy another although currently it is my most comfortable and therefore the current yardstick for comparison. I looked at wallbike earlier today and saw the selection and am unsure if I want the to try the B-17 or the N
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...badabill
Aug 15, 2001 7:00 PM
After reading the posts lately I too looked at the B-17. It looks like it would work for me, I like a wide flat seat. Back to a WTB saddle now after trying a Flite TI and a Max Trans-am. Every saddle I try seems to work for a while and then starts to give dicomfort, usually after 100mi or so. The 6 month deal has me sold, I am going to try the B-17
Hey-Lone Gunman...UncleMoe
Aug 15, 2001 8:00 PM
Just an FYI, I was torn between the B17 and B17n version too. Bill at wallbike asked me a few questions. The big one was "am I an aggressive out of the saddle rider, or more of a commuter/touring type rider." When I said mainly commuter/touring, he suggested the regular version. Turns out to be perfect. When I see the indents for the sit bones, they are in a perfect spot.

The B17 is 170 mm wide, the B17n I think was 155, much more in line with modern saddles. Only 15 mm differnce, but I could see it causing a problem to be too narrow on longer rides. Since the saddle sort of suspends you, you sort of want your butt with some space around it to actually suspend. With the B17n, I think I'd end up on the rails of the frame vs. suspending. (BTW, I am only 5'7" and 165 pnds., that is why I was leaning towards the "n" version, but glad I didn't).

Just some insight. It wasn't any easy choice but I just went with Bill's advice since he sells them. I couldn't think of a good way to measure my butt!
Hey-Lone Gunman...Ray Sachs
Aug 16, 2001 4:43 AM
I have Brooks B-17s on a couple of bikes and Specialized BG Pro saddles on a couple others. The Specialized is a much narrower saddle than the Brooks and I like it for more aggressive riding. I tried the narrower Brooks models (B-17N and Swift ti) and couldn't get comfortable on them even though they're wider than the Specialized. With a leather saddle I think wider is better, up to a point.

As always, YMMV.
600 grams = 1 lb 1 oz (nm)wes
Aug 15, 2001 7:37 PM
Check your conversionCliff Oates
Aug 16, 2001 12:36 AM
At 28.4 grams per ounce and 445 grams per pound, 600 grams is 1 pound 5.6 ounces
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...Birddog
Aug 15, 2001 7:08 PM
My brother suffered for months on various saddles and was about to give up when he heard about the Brooks. He bought one and he now grins "like a jackass eatin' thistles" when he rides.
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...DINOSAUR
Aug 15, 2001 8:20 PM
I rode with a Brooks Pro for a couple of seasons off and on. I couldn't get it to dial in with the geometry of my bike due to the position of the rails. The weight didn't bother me that much but the copper rivets ate the heck out of my cycling shorts. I guess you have to go with what works for you. I think the Pro weighs around 290 grams....
I'd rather put a boat anchor on my bike...tirider
Aug 15, 2001 10:26 PM
... OK, I'm just kidding... I'm looking at a vintage '73 Brooks Pro saddle I keep diplayed on a bookshelf with some miscellaneous old Campi Nuevo Record parts and it looks damn near as good as when I bought it due to regular cleaning and treatments in years past. That saddle has seen thousands upon thousands of miles. But I personally wouldn't think of putting one on my current bike having spent thousands in an addictive quest to shave grams. The beauty of the Brooks is that you sit ON the saddle, not IN the saddle with layers of foam and gel, but I'm sorry for me the weight is completely excessive given today's technology. If you want a saddle that lasts a lifetime but aren't concerned with weight then it's for you, but if hills are to be ridden in the least amount of time then saddles such as the Selle Italia SLR (135gm) are an imperative with similar concepts in design (i.e. minimal padding). The tradeoff is durability (I munched my SLR in one crash today) but then everything has it's downside in life...
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...Pogliaghi
Aug 15, 2001 10:52 PM
The Brooks piqued your interest, huh? Me too, and on a whim, I decided to equip my first road bike with one. Never been happier with a saddle. Most Brooks aficionados ride 'em for the comfort. I can't speak for the B17, but the Swift is very comfortable. YMMV.

But picking for your seat is a tricky thing. Some have whacked their Brooks with a ballpeen hammer, and still it was too uncomfortable. Butts come in different shapes, and if you and the Brooks don't match you'll have dumped some bucks on a heavy and firm saddle.

BTW, B17=690g Team Pro=560g Swift Ti=365g

Others on this board have attested to www.wallbike.com - apparently, they offer a money back guarantee if you're not happy with the Brooks. I'd recommend contacting them.
B-17 was $29.99 last week at Performanceclifford
Aug 16, 2001 5:41 AM
Looks like we just missed a chance to try them at a lower price.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1625481217&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=997929591&indexURL=0&rd=1
B-17 was $29.99 last week at Performanceclifford
Aug 16, 2001 5:45 AM
oops

http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.html?sku=13812
that actually a B17 NarrowRusty McNasty
Aug 16, 2001 7:40 AM
which is really too small for most users, and is probably the cheapest, least comfortable saddle they make. It's hardly surprising that performance is discontinuing them-they don't carry the better models, and they never even advertized this one!
re: What is the reason for the Brooks...Gary M
Aug 16, 2001 8:07 AM
I bought a B17n from Performance and love it. It was comfy right out of the box and now after 500 miles or so, it continues to get better. What sold me was the glowing cult like reviews on MTBreview.com. Plus the idea that it is essentially a piece of leather slung across a frame that conforms to your anatomy makes more sense from a design perspective than the current seats that are nothing but hard plastic platforms with a bit of foam/gel on them. The only downsides that I can see is the additional weight and the fact that you don't want to ride it in the rain. I had to pass on a ride last week for this reason. I could have put my Selle Italia back on the bike but I couldn't see riding a 50 mile ride without the Brooks.